# A Question About WWII Tanks **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 10, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941 "2011-02-10T20:30:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/41 "2011-02-18T17:16:58Z")
While everyone is correct that the German Tiger and Panther tanks are far superior to the Shermans (except in reliability), that’s not the most relevant comparison. The majority of German armor faced by Shermans were Pz IV tanks or turretless StuG III assault guns. Germany produced 10,600 StuG III, 8800 Pz IV, 6000 Panthers (the vast majority of which were sent to the Eastern front), and 1300 Tigers. And as was mentioned previously these were stacked against 49,000 Shermans and 57,000 T-34s. The comparison with more common German tanks isn’t nearly as unfavorable. The Sherman was superior to early-production Pz IVs in just about every way. Later Pz IVs had a superior gun but were otherwise fairly comparable to the Sherman. Either was capable of destroying the other. The later StuG III versions had the same superior gun. Since it lacked a turret, it wasn’t very useful for attacking other tanks, though it worked well enough supporting infantry attacks. On the other hand, the lack of a turret made it cheap to produce, and easy to hide for ambushes. That made it quite useful towards the end of the war when the Germans were on the defense and running out of resources. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/42 "2011-02-18T17:32:10Z")
Yes, the Stugs were put into the role for which the American TDs had been designed. Ambushing an attacker and retreating before artillery could be brought down on them. One disadvantage of the Tigers was that their weight severly restricted their tactical mobility. Very few bridges could support a Tiger whereas many more could take a Sherman with little risk. The maintenance issues of the German tanks was no joke. A tiger on the march had to stop for routine maintenance after the _first 5 Kilometers_. Early Panthers suffered more disabilities from engine fires than enemy guns. The Panther had transmission problems because the frontal armor was considerably thickened after the drive train had been designed. This also caused stripped drive wheels. Pz IVs and Stugs also suffered this problem as subsequent models were given successively thicker frontal armor. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/43 "2011-02-18T21:36:27Z")
> [@buckgully](#): > > WWI tank crews sometimes wore chainmail masks to protect from spalls/rivets bouncing around inside the tanks. > > There’s an example on the Wikipedia entry here: > [Tanks in World War I - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_I#Trial_by_fire) The face masks were not very effective against flying rivets or spalling. Their primary purpose was to protect against bullet splash, where fragments of lead would squip through when a bullet hit a seam between the armour plates. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/44 "2011-02-18T23:04:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bookkeeper] …fragments of lead would squip through when a bullet hit a seam between the armour plates. [/QUOTE] We’re learning all kinds of new words today. Is _squip_ military or shooter talk? Can’t find a dictionary definition. Can spall squip? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/45 "2011-02-18T23:15:40Z")
Just throwing this in: [The German Tank problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem) in mathematics. It never occurred to the Germans that the Allies could reliably estimate the number of tanks they had, and even their production rate, just by looking at the serial numbers of destroyed or captured ones. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/46 "2011-02-18T23:59:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just throwing this in: [The German Tank problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem) in mathematics. It never occurred to the Germans that the Allies could reliably estimate the number of tanks they had, and even their production rate, just by looking at the serial numbers of destroyed or captured ones. Uh…that’s _amazing_. I know I didn’t follow all the math but just the basic premise: > [@](#): > > The formula may be understood intuitively as: > > ``` > "The sample maximum plus the average gap between observations in the sample" > > ``` As the wiki says, simple but not obvious. The resulting precision, as revealed after the war, is enough to persuade any decisionmaker to keep those guys on staff, I’d think. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/47 "2011-02-19T07:41:25Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > PS: I learned a new word, ‘spalling’, reading this. The idea that even if a hit didn’t hole a plate it still caused significant damage is quite interesting to me. Incidentally, a similar effect, but on the human body, can be witnessed in the form of Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries, better known as Concussions. Something hits you in the head, but doesn’t penetrate the skull. The force still gets transferred into the brain, which can be damaged in the process. This is why helmets worn by soldiers have thick foam pads on the insides, not unlike bicycle helmets (I want to say the bike helmets have been doing it a lot longer). ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/48 "2011-02-19T18:55:33Z")
Just throwing out that another reason for sticking with Shermans is that they were designed to fit standard railroad cars (with clearance for standard bridges, tunnels, etc.). For tank that was mostly built several thousand miles from where it was used, this was important. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/49 "2011-02-19T19:43:11Z")
The real main problem for Shermans was not the armour, it was the gun. A sherman had to close 2000 yards closer to a tiger to have any hope in engaging it with any real hope of success. Thats 2000 yards of killing zone for theTiger, 2000 yards of free shots. Shermans were uprated to a 75mm gun, and for the US forces in Normandy, that was effective enough as they did not meet many Tigers, and they certainly outgunned the remaining Axis tanks. Once theye were modified with the 17 pounder gun - which required a a significant redesign, they were very much a match for the Tiger in terms of firepower, which in turn allowed them to shoot from a similar range, which again gave the armour more chance.They were operated very carefully as they were the only tank that could reliably knock out Tigers. During the Nomandy operations the way the British were deployed tended to put them up against Tigers and Panthers far more than had been expected so Firefly tanks were used extensively in hull down ambush attacks, in a couple of incidents Firefly tanks took out 5 tigers in 6 consecutive shots. These were only intended as a stopgap but despite this, they did an effective job > **[Sherman Firefly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly)** > > The Sherman Firefly was a medium tank used by the United Kingdom and some armoured formations of other Allies in the Second World War. It was based on the US M4 Sherman but was fitted with the more powerful British 76.2 mm (3.00 in) calibre 17-pounder anti-tank gun as its main weapon. Conceived as a stopgap until future British tank designs came into service, the Sherman Firefly became the most common vehicle mounting the 17-pounder in the war. > The British Army made extensive use of Sherman t... The intended replacement was delayed somewhat, had it been available just six months sooner it would have been the best tank of the whole war. > **[Comet (tank)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank)** > > The Comet tank or Tank, Cruiser, Comet I (A34) was a British cruiser tank that first saw use near the end of the Second World War, during the Western Allied invasion of Germany. The Comet was developed from the earlier Cromwell tank and mounted the new 17 pdr High Velocity (HV) (3 inch; 76.2 mm – sometimes referred to as "77  mm") gun, in a lower profile, partly-cast turret. This gun was effective against late-war German tanks, including the Panther at medium range, and the Tiger. > The Comet r... Had it gone on for that 6 months, theres even a chance that the greatest tank of the 20thC - would have seen action - the Centurion.This would have wiped the battlefield clear of anything hte Axis had to offer, except perhaps taking the Elefant direct head-on ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/50 "2011-02-19T20:11:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just throwing this in: [The German Tank problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem) in mathematics. It never occurred to the Germans that the Allies could reliably estimate the number of tanks they had, and even their production rate, just by looking at the serial numbers of destroyed or captured ones. My mind, consider it blown. Why have I never heard of this? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941/51 "2011-02-23T00:44:17Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > We’re learning all kinds of new words today. > > Is _squip_ military or shooter talk? Can’t find a dictionary definition. > > Can spall squip? 😃 Hmmm, it appears upon intensive investigation (I looked it up in Google) that this may be internal family slang rather than a commonly used word, at least for the given meaning. Feel free to use it without attribution, however. 🙂 SQUIP _v_: Originally, the action of a cat slipping through the 2-inch gap in a rapidly closing door, usually to a room they’re not allowed to be in; by extension, the action of anything moving at high speed through a narrow gap that is apparently too small to admit it (from a combination of _squeeze_ + _slip_). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-wwii-tanks/570941.md?page=2)